1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The allegations and judgment of the parties

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(However, the "creditor" is deemed to be the "defendant" for the plaintiff and the "debtor". 【The grounds for recognition】 Each entry and the purport of the whole pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 to 7

B. On February 16, 2011, in the case of voluntary auction application for the instant loan claim, the distribution schedule was prepared with the content that distributes KRW 442,275,082 to the Plaintiff on February 16, 201, and on the same day, the fact that the distribution schedule became final and conclusive is no dispute between the parties. Moreover, as the instant payment order was filed on February 13, 2017, five years after the date, the instant claim for the instant loan was completed and expired, the extinctive prescription was completed, and the Plaintiff repaid KRW 19,011 out of the instant loan obligation on May 31, 2012, and this constitutes an acceptance of the obligation, which constitutes the grounds for interruption of extinctive prescription. Accordingly, as the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order prior to the lapse of five years thereafter, the extinctive prescription of the instant loan claim was not expired.

However, since the written evidence Nos. 8 and 9 alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant voluntarily repaid KRW 19,011 to the Plaintiff on May 31, 2012, as part of the instant loan, the Plaintiff’s re-appeal based on this premise cannot be accepted.

2. The decision is delivered with the assent of all participating Justices who rejected the Plaintiff’s claim on this ground.